Keep it clean...I post this mainly because a lot of SR's rules are FAR from realistic.

I voted no. I also have probably modified the combat system, weapons, and other nifty bits more than everyone here, because I hate it. The thing is, a lot of the people I play with and talk to really don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of guns, or any, outside of what the watch on TV. They don't care that in real life rifle rounds have a higher overall velocity and penetrate armor better and so on, they just want to play a fun game. The rules aren't "broken", they can be dumb and pretty damn far from reality at times, but they're operational and for the most part, fun. If you hate it, you can change it, but I don't see a rules jihad being neccessary just quite yet.

-D

Outside of what is in effect only a few minor things, no, the rules are fine as they are. There are some oddities to be sure, but overall the system is quite elegant and does a good job at maintaining an abstract view of the world, thus leaving the details to good GMs.

I think adjusting the conceal numbers to make more sense is okay, but making a far more complex system of calibers is too far to go, so my answer is somewhere between the two options. Binary polls for an opinion based topic are bad mmmkay

Hmm. What does realism have to do with gaming?
Skipping the standard "There aren't dragons in the real world. No magic in the real world. No elves in the real world" for the moment.

There is no such thing as realism. There is 'realistic as judged by me'.

I used to have some links to amazing survival stories. But new computer so no links. However, I can always find the freefall jaw droppers.

A man falls 18,000 feet and his worst injury is a twisted knee?
http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffallers.html

Some violent ones I remember, but don't have links to...being shot with a bow and arrow, arrow all the way through the guys head and he gets up and chases off the guy who shot him...taking the bow from him.

Guest on Oprah a long time ago, shot in the head multiple times by a .45. She then crawls through the mud for a long distance to the road, where she is eventually picked up and taken to hospital.


Anyhow...games aren't about realism. They're about having fun. SR is far from perfect, but still it's much better than D20.

Here's something to consider: How many other RPGs would you even think about arguing about the realism of the rules of?

Me? None, including Shadowrun (believability, yes; realism, no). But you'll find people bitching about realism on any forum dedicated to any gaming system. It's a natural tendency for roleplaying geeks the world over.

As they stand, the rules are fun and playable. I think they fall nicely between movie/cartoon physics and ultrarealism. You can't blaze away from the hip while doing cartwheels without consider recoil and movement modifiers. On the other hand the damge codes obiovsly aren't based on detailed balistic impact studies.

I consider myself someone moderately interested and knowledgeable about firearms (I can match major countries with their army's assault rifle of choice...I know what US infantyman carried in each of the major wars...stuff like that) and very few of the "wildly unrealistic" aspects of shadowrun talked about here ever even occured to me. Alot of the issues seem fairly minor and easily solved (either make pistols more conceaable or SMGs less so, etc).

If you are very into firearms, have fun working on new systems. For my games, I would rather put the effort into working on storlyline/unique npcs/new challenges. If damage code for machine pistols ever has a major impact on my game, I feel something went wrong. I'm not saying a good, fairly believable combat system isn't important--but when some guy just prayed to Dog that his enemys be engulfed in flames (and it worked!), while another guy is driving a car with his brain, I don't mind suspending disbelief over the detailed nature of flechette damage.

I'm glad to see the overwhelming "no" response.

Heh, I've seen people come to blows over gunpwder in DnD.

The only real Problem I have is with the conceal numbers, and that the stats of some weapons are not adjusted to the new accessiores (Steyr AUG with foregrip etc)

I'm just skipping every comment in this thread, but throwing my own two cents onto the end.

Its a GAME, and since its a GAME its meant to be fun. Fun for _most_ people doesn't involve 9x18mm versus 9x19mm plus the ability of 5.56mm to pierce blah blah while the .300 whisper will blah blah blah.

No one cares except a group of incredibly anal-retentive nerds on an internet forum.

Not to say that I don't cringe at some of the firearms rules, I do think there should be some calibers involved, only so that when you try to load your Ares Predator with ammo from the Super Warhawk it fails, but other than that, I'm pretty easy going. Yeah, there's plenty of problems with how things work, but when you strip away all the incessant wanking about nitty gritty details few people know or care about you're left with a streamlined, quick, and realistic enough system to facilitate a good role playing game.

See, kids, there's that GAME word again.

Realism becomes abstract for the price of playability, all things considered, teh world is JUST fine with that.

Although yeah, concealment rating are a bit whacky.

There are cetainly some changes that could be made, but most of them would be small. Among them: Conceal ratings, weights, weapon customization, and probably the advanced rigger rules. I don't think the canon rules need to include the level of detail that some posters want- conversions and house rules are already available online and people who feel the need will make their own. Some clarifications on what is and isn't possible with magic and more about how it "works" would be appreciated. That can be handled with FAQs though. Some things should probably be rewritten for clarity even if no actual rules are changed. A reorganization could help. I'd never really thought about it until seeing it here, but the cross referencing does suck and if it is somehow possible to cut down on the amount of necessary books it'd be nice; no arguments about how You only need the core book!! - mechanically, games with R3, Matrix, CC, M&M, and MitS are a lot better than ones with only SR3.

While I agree the rules are broken, I doubt that more realism is necessarily the best way to go. The problems with the core rolling mechanic (reroll on 6) as well as the initiative system are far bigger problems that the fact I can use the same bullets to load any heavy pistol.

It's still a game. Having played a few systems, rerolling isn't all that big of a deal; some people like to feel that they have "conquered the world" when the odds work out that they rolled an 18 on one die.

Does the system have problems? Yes, but so does every other system. OTOH, the point is to have fun, not have to remember if Ammo X fits in guns Y, Z, A, and D.

There's also a difference between common sense and realism. If something is dictated by the rules and makes sense, then it's usually okay. I guess that's the believability, but I'd like to see "this makes sense in our paradigm" rather than "this is what the real world is". A game is simply an abstraction based on reality. Some of that basing is a bit...whack, but sometimes it works out.

Don

I've been in games (SR and otherwise) where the players knew more about the subject at hand than the GM. (Example: a bunch of bio-engineering grad students as players and the Lib-Arts GM introduces a viral weapon) We had a level of realism about on par with most hollywood movies.

Are there things broken, yes. Do we need to change them, not in my group.

Raygun knows more about guns than I could ever dream to, thus if s/he wants to change the gun rules--go for broke. But we all have to simply accept that we are using what FanPro/FASA sends out as a universal starting ground, and the modifications get checked at the door unless the Modifier is the one running the game.

I null-voted. I'm not particularly fond of some things in the system, but I do love the system. Not all rules need fixing, most of the rules are just fine. If they weren't, I wouldn't bother trying to fix the rest.

Hmm.

Another spoiled ballot here I'm afraid. I still have this big issue with house rules in that it's too easy to break the system.

Changing concealability levels for individual weapons is fine and a reasonably good change, but it will always have a knock-on effect. It will makes those guns more or less valuable in comparison to the alternatives. Which probably won't cause huge problems.

Changing the success probabilities or the intitiative system or something major will break the game.

I find the rules playable and functional. Realistic? Not in a lot of areas, but the playability and functionality matter more to me.

There are some interesting quirks that may need to be ironed out (shotgun rules!), but in general I'd say things are decent, no major overhaul necessary.

~J

In my INART 010 class last semester, one topic was covered that I found interesting. Verisimilitude versus Realism.

for example, Calvin and Hobbes has Verisimilitude, Prince Valient has Realism.

which one do people actually read?

My answer is that Shadowrun oozes verisimilitude from every pore. If I wanted realism, I would go buy a 30 ought 6, camp out on an overpass and take out drivers and passengers until being gunned down by a police helicopter.

That's always a fun, relaxing activity. I know some good overpasses, including pedestrian overpasses, for that sort of thing.

~J

99% of the people that play or even look at SR rules don't have a butt hole clue about guns and therefore would not know if it was unrealistic or not. Nor would they be offended by the supposed lack of realism.


Myself and Raygun excluded of course.


Not that it matters. If I want realism I would step out my front porch and gun it out with the police.

Unless you make up more than 1% of SR players, there was no need to exclude Raygun or yourself

~J

The question asked wasn't about realism, it was about broken-ness.

Whilst Raygun's rules may be more realistic, possibly balanced too, that does not mean that the canon rules are broken or need fixing.